Dishonest Influencers – USA Gov Policy

Far too many of America’s influencers, those who shape public opinion through broadcasting, publishing, teaching or even entertaining, have proven to be incapable or unwilling to honestly portray the numerous serious issues facing the nation.

There is a key reason for this. Some, especially those who graduated in the past two decades, have been poorly educated in history and even worse in the arts of reason and research. As universities, high schools and even lower education concentrated, reasonably commendably, on science and math, they did so at the expense of history and civics. Ignorant of the hard-learned lessons of past crises and taught in an environment where emotion is considered as vital as accuracy, they simply lack the bedrock tools necessary.

Absent a widespread historical memory or a comprehension of how American government works, it became easy for extremists to push concepts that have already repeatedly failed or that simply fail to reflect reality.

Take the current popularity of socialism, which polls indicate is significantly popular among the young. A Gallup survey found that at least half of young adults prefer it over capitalism. They do so in large part because biased hard-left professors refused to reveal how socialism has consistently led to tyranny, mass murder, and destroyed economies. They gloss over the fact that it has provided “equality” by reducing the middle class to poverty, not by raising the poor to increased prosperity. Students and professors who question Leftist orthodoxy are penalized, harassed and ostracized, an authoritative response quite typical of socialist regimes.

By falsely portraying America’s political and economic system as biased and inequitable, they have spawned a movement of misguided militants.

One would assume that more informed journalists, pundits, or professors would strive to provide enlightenment and correct the factual inaccuracies. A (very) small number have, but have done so at great peril.

As the hard-left gained ascendancy in education and journalism, it moved forcefully and expeditiously to remove those with differing views from their institutions. Look at the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in education. Look at how print, broadcast and internet news organizations delete those with conservative views from their staffs. Note how the entertainment industry vigorously and viciously blackballs those who dissent from “progressive” views.

A recent, and perhaps one of the most illustrative examples comes from the rapidly deteriorating New York Times. The publication acted shamefully (again!) In saying there’s no need for a presidential debate. They rightfully fear that Biden’s mental decay will show, and have become so partisan they would rather support an incompetent than honestly report the news. Eliminating debates means eliminating the role of the public to make up their own mind as to the better of the two candidates. The New York Times and the elitists who detest popular opinion believe their role is tell the public what to think.

Like that once-venerable newspaper, many in education seek to divorce the public from the information needed to truly exercise their sovereignty as citizens. As Townhall and many others have reported, the essential tool to do that, a knowledge of civics and history, is under attack. “During a meeting in Evanston…political, education, and other Chicago leaders demanded the Illinois State Board of Education stop teaching history until a suitable alternative is developed…The mayor refused to take a stand for U.S. history because it’s not his ‘area…’”

It sildenafil side effects is very vital for a person to take a proper medication and be away from stress as it can be harmful for general health. They should understand viagra free the fact that there is a behavioral disorder those who respond so disproportionately original cause. The sildenafil generic from canada persons mailbox may be completely filled, or put on disabled – You can’t do anything about this except for contacting the mailbox holder another way and let him/her know about the problem. This medicine, that is specially designed for rejuvenation of men are not happy with their size cost of viagra 100mg and would like to get him or her in your bed, or, while masturbating, every day thoughts on class mates or co-workers are haunting you, hormones or ovulation may be to blame.

It has been, for the Progressives, a half- century long and quite victorious “march through the institutions” that has virtually created a leftist monopoly, with a few exceptions, on the airwaves, the internet, education, and Hollywood. The goal was not just to push their perspective, but also to censor all other views.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.